SPLIT FROM ; CRT being sued in the High Court for misuse of Section 8 rule

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Parliament took a long time and gave careful consideration to the powers that it gave BW, now CRT, and Parliament gave them powers that Parliament considered correct. If one studies the applicable laws and bylaws everything is available to CRT that they should need if they run the waterways the way Parliament wants them run without, in my opinion, the need for CRT to attempt to write their own laws attempting to overrule the Statutes and the Bylaws. I believe Parliament refused to grant some powers to CRT/BW because it did not believe either they were need or that it was reasonable for CRT to have that power or that there were already laws in existence that dealt with something.

 

The use of section 8 for example to recover debt was not I believe what it was written for and there is plenty of law that available for the recovery of debt. Nor was it written to deal with unlicensed boats.

 

Just taking licences as an example, the Bylaws state:

 

Licensing

 

Licensing of pleasure boats and commercial vessels

 

3. (1) No person shall knowingly cause or permit to be brought, kept, let for hire or used on any canal (not being a river waterway) any pleasure boat unless there is then in force in relation to the pleasure boat a pleasure boat licence.

 

(2) No person shall knowingly cause or permit to be brought, kept, let for hire or used on any canal (not being a commercial waterway) any commercial vessel unless there is then in force in relation to the commercial vessel a commercial vessel licence.

 

This is subject to a fine on summary conviction A lot cheaper and simpler than section 8 for CRT and can cost a boat owner a lot more in the end including a criminal record.

 

The Bylaws can be read here http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/foi/legal/BW_General_Canal_Bye-laws.pdf

 

The various statutes are available online.

 

A point repeatedly make, but one that is ignored by many.

 

It is also interesting that the offence is 'repeated' every day the boat remains unlicensed, so what starts of as a 'nominal' charge of £100 soon 'racks up to £1000s

[Geo]

 

A point repeatedly make, but one that is ignored by many.

 

It is also interesting that the offence is 'repeated' every day the boat remains unlicensed, so what starts of as a 'nominal' charge of £100 soon 'racks up to £1000s

 

I think you will find that is £25, however as you say it is a repeating offence and quickly mounts up. I have a feeling that the repeatability could be more frequent than daily, but I have been unable to confirm that. However it would soon run up to in excess of the licence fee, and each period would be a separate charge and thus a separate fine.

 

ETA Buying a licence does not escape the fine for the period the boat is unlicensed, the offence has been committed and is not annulled by the purchase of a licence.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Geo

[Alan de Enfield]

 

I think you will find that is £25, however as you say it is a repeating offence and quickly mounts up. I have a feeling that the repeatability could be more frequent than daily, but I have been unable to confirm that. However it would soon run up to in excess of the licence fee, and each period would be a separate charge and thus a separate fine.

 

I think you will find that it is £100

 

As noted in the amended British Waterways Bye Laws dated 17th November 1976.

 

Any person who contravenes the foregoing or any of the Board’s General Canal Bye-laws or any of the bye-laws for the regulation of the Gloucester and Sharpness Canal and River Severn Navigation and the bye-laws for prohibiting or controlling water skiing shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds for each offence and in any byelaw prescribing penalties the words “one hundred” shall be substituted for “twenty-five”.

[Geo]

 

I think you will find that it is £100

 

As noted in the amended British Waterways Bye Laws dated 17th November 1976.

 

Any person who contravenes the foregoing or any of the Board’s General Canal Bye-laws or any of the bye-laws for the regulation of the Gloucester and Sharpness Canal and River Severn Navigation and the bye-laws for prohibiting or controlling water skiing shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds for each offence and in any byelaw prescribing penalties the words “one hundred” shall be substituted for “twenty-five”.

 

You are correct, I blame dirty glasses.

 

So that would make 30 days £3000. Ouch

[Alan de Enfield]

 

You are correct, I blame dirty glasses.

 

So that would make 30 days £3000. Ouch

 

And would be recovered at almost no effort and minimal cost when compared to months of 'wrangling' and extended court cases following a section 8 'claim'.

 

It can only be as some (of our ex-members) suggest, that C&RT want dramatic 'headlines' ("Boater Loses Home") rather than actual compliance with the rules.

 

The Bye laws are no just about not having a licence, but 'dumping your stuff on the towpath', causing navigation problems by mooring in the wrong place, not using sound signals, etc etc.

 

If they had the 'will' C&RT could 'sort out' many of the problems using existing legislation with no need to make up the own.

[mayalld]

 

You are correct, I blame dirty glasses.

 

So that would make 30 days £3000. Ouch

1) as originally enacted the penalties were £5 for the initial offence plus 40 shillings per day for continuing offences. The £5 was revised to £25 then £100 but the extra days amount remains at 40 shillings.

2) the additional amount for continuing offences only applies if the offence continues after conviction.

[MtB]

 

And would be recovered at almost no effort and minimal cost when compared to months of 'wrangling' and extended court cases following a section 8 'claim'.

 

 

Ah but what do you mean by 'recovered'?

 

An itinerant CCer sticking two fingers up at CRT might be fined £100 a day in his absence but how much effort will the authorities put into tracking down and arresting a non-paying boater? None, I suspect, without a postcode to attend with the arrest warrant.

[Geo]

1) as originally enacted the penalties were £5 for the initial offence plus 40 shillings per day for continuing offences. The £5 was revised to £25 then £100 but the extra days amount remains at 40 shillings.

2) the additional amount for continuing offences only applies if the offence continues after conviction.

 

Penalties Penalties 5.

 

Any person who contravenes the foregoing or any of the Board’s General Canal Bye-laws or any of the bye-laws for the regulation of the Gloucester and Sharpness Canal and River Severn Navigation and the bye-laws for prohibiting or controlling water skiing shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds for each offence and in any byelaw prescribing penalties the words “one hundred” shall be substituted for “twenty-five”.

 

I think you will find it is each offence

[mayalld]

 

Penalties Penalties 5.

 

Any person who contravenes the foregoing or any of the Board’s General Canal Bye-laws or any of the bye-laws for the regulation of the Gloucester and Sharpness Canal and River Severn Navigation and the bye-laws for prohibiting or controlling water skiing shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds for each offence and in any byelaw prescribing penalties the words “one hundred” shall be substituted for “twenty-five”.

 

I think you will find it is each offence

 

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

 

If you keep an unlicenced boat on the waterway, that is a single offence, not an arbitrary number of offences split up on a daily/weekly/hourly basis.

 

The original bye-laws contain a provision for continuing offences;

 

Any person who offends against any of the forgoing bye-laws shall be liable on summary conviction to a penaly not exceeding FIVE POUNDS for each offence, and in the case of a continuing offence a further penalty not exceeding FORTY SHILLINGS for each day on which the offence is continued after conviction thereof.

 

The subsequent bye-laws increased the "each offence" amount to £25 then £100, but made no further mention was made of continuing offences.

 

As the 1965 bye-laws introduced the concept of a continuing offence, any option to regard the offence as committed again after some arbitrary time is lost to them.

 

The offence is committed ONCE, and a maximum penalty is provided. A penalty for continuation past conviction exists, so a court on convicting a boater of not having a licence can impose a fine of £100 plus £2 for every day AFTER conviction. It cannot impose a fine of more than £100 in respect of the unlicenced boat for the days up to the conviction, or impose a fine of more that £2 per day beyond the conviction.

[NigelMoore]

 

This is all I am going to say on the topic, and I hope that we can move on from here and talk about the topic in hand, rather than the details of past site moderation.

 

For the avoidance of any misunderstanding, I was very far from demanding, requesting or even just inviting you to say anything more on the topic at all. I accepted your right to do as you please here, and deemed your last word on that topic - in the last post you appended to it - to be an accurate explanation to all, that it was locked because you do not wish your site to be used as a platform for campaigning against CaRT. It follows that you so characterised those posts within that topic that were critical of CaRT &/or [presumably] organisations such as Shoosmiths whom they use to fight their battles.

 

It is needful to point out that any user comment on that post of yours is NOT dealing with “past site moderation”; for your words to have any meaning they must be read as a newly stated policy that CaRT and their legal wolves are not to be criticised – or at least, not to be criticised too often or too colourfully - from this point on. I am certainly not aware of any such policy existing previously.

 

Once again, for the avoidance of doubt, while I recorded my disagreement with any classification of my posts as part of a campaign against CaRT per se, I have not challenged your right to so classify my posts [as you seem to have], nor have I challenged your decisions based on that.

 

The post you responded to simply replied to specific questions from other members, and in doing so, merely directed them to your own words.

[NigelMoore]

Nigel,

Isn't it possible that the "Provocative and inflammatory posts" originated from other posters on the thread? My recollection of your posts is that they are detailed and considered, rather than inflammatory.

 

I understand you would want clarity on where the boundary between tolerable and intolerable lies to avoid posting under a sword of damocles, but would be surprised if your own posts were too close to the line and would hope you could continue to post on CWDF.

 

I would certainly hope that that was considered to be the case, but that description was linked to the primary reason given for locking the thread, which was that it was considered to comprise a campaign against CaRT & Shoosmiths. It seems very likely in that context, that critical posts such as mine were considered provocative and inflammatory.

 

Moreover, whether unhappy coincidence or not, the terms of objection to the thread as comprising a campaign against CaRT, is identical to the description of my posts used by CaRT and Shoosmiths in their pleadings before Chief Master Marsh.

 

They accused me, specifically, of usurping Leigh’s case in order to conduct a campaign against them, utilising his case and this forum to promote causes of my own, rather than Leigh’s. They produced two witness statements exhibiting copied posts from the now locked thread, as suggested evidence of their accusation.

 

The posts used were :

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=76499&p=1712925

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=76499&p=1825130

 

http://www.canalworl...26#entry1871643

 

http://www.canalworl...26#entry1871733

 

http://www.canalworl...26#entry1871746

 

The Chief Master characterised CaRT’s case thus: “putting my own gloss on the CRT's case, its concern is that Mr Moore is part of a campaign being pursued against the CRT on behalf of boat owners who dislike the CRT's approach and that the conduct of Mr Ravenscroft's claim will be adversely affected if Mr Moore acts as an advocate for Mr Ravenscroft. The CRT fears the claim will be used for the purposes of a campaign against the CRT, rather than for the resolution issues that directly concerns Mr Ravenscroft.”

 

The vocabulary is uncomfortably close to Dan’s.

 

Having read the posts, and listened to my explanation that I was NOT campaigning against CaRT per se, but campaigning to have them abide by the law, the Chief Master declined to accept CaRT’s argument and characterisation of my input, and indeed, volunteered the observation that my contributions were “no doubt, an extremely useful resource for boaters to rely upon.”

 

Maybe that has been the problem all along. Although I have protested firmly that it seems inconceivable that either CaRT or Shoosmiths should want to close down a priceless conduit into their opposition’s thinking, Dan’s denial that either contacted him “directly”, gives rise to the inevitable suspicion that he was indirectly contacted – giving the lie to anything I have said to the contrary, in reliance on common sense.

 

I still struggle to comprehend that, but in any event it is of little interest or import to me; it is CaRT’s loss – and CWDF’s – not mine. What it leaves me with, is total uncertainty over what might be considered acceptable from me, as opposed to what might cause the alternative thread also to be locked down.

 

Presumably, simply posting updates will be tolerated provided I make no comment on them. I can do that, for those who wish to discuss these amongst themselves, to the extent that such will now be permitted. For any explication and discussion with my own input, you will, of course, now have to go elsewhere.

 

My intent is education – of myself first of all, but also - for the sake of all those with an interest in these matters, especially those who might face illegal action against them, and who need the sort of resource to material that I would so dearly have appreciated back in the day. Whence those in need derive that information is not important [whether from here or elsewhere]; the only relevant issue is whether it is available.

[Paul C]

Nigel, just post the updates and have the debate/etc on Thunderboat, pretty much everyone is there now anyway.

[Jerra]

Nigel, just post the updates and have the debate/etc on Thunderboat, pretty much everyone is there now anyway.

No they aren't and I have no intention of going so please don't encourage unnecessary friction between the two forums.

[MtB]

The thing that puzzles me, is that given it appears Dan has been contacted indirectly by CRT/Shoosmiths and warned off, why this doesn't happen at thunderbolt.

 

I'm distrustful of many so many of the management statements here now.

[Paul C]

Yes they are, everyone reads it, including the mods on here, and it causes no friction of its own between the two forums - each has their space and moderation style. If Nigel wants to post it once, and express an opinion on matters, there is now one logical place to do that.

[Jerra]

Yes they are, everyone reads it,

 

Sorry but this is clearly not correct as I for one am not so everybody doesn't read it.

 

So as far as I can see in the last few posts there has been one attempting to get a poster to not post here but post elsewhere followed by a sweeping statement that everybody reads the other place which is clearly not correct.

 

I am beginning to think some posters on this forum are deliberately trying to undermine it.

 

Just how it reads to me.

[NigelMoore]

 

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

 

If you keep an unlicenced boat on the waterway, that is a single offence, not an arbitrary number of offences split up on a daily/weekly/hourly basis.

 

The original bye-laws contain a provision for continuing offences;

 

Any person who offends against any of the forgoing bye-laws shall be liable on summary conviction to a penaly not exceeding FIVE POUNDS for each offence, and in the case of a continuing offence a further penalty not exceeding FORTY SHILLINGS for each day on which the offence is continued after conviction thereof.

 

The subsequent bye-laws increased the "each offence" amount to £25 then £100, but made no further mention was made of continuing offences.

 

As the 1965 bye-laws introduced the concept of a continuing offence, any option to regard the offence as committed again after some arbitrary time is lost to them.

 

The offence is committed ONCE, and a maximum penalty is provided. A penalty for continuation past conviction exists, so a court on convicting a boater of not having a licence can impose a fine of £100 plus £2 for every day AFTER conviction. It cannot impose a fine of more than £100 in respect of the unlicenced boat for the days up to the conviction, or impose a fine of more that £2 per day beyond the conviction.

 

It is an interesting one this. There is, of course, a difference between the penalties under the byelaws – which will apply to failure to have a licence – and penalties under the 1971 Act as amended, which will apply to failure to have a certificate of registration.

I am uncertain as to this, but I seem to recall some comment respecting recent legislation that has applied across the board amendments to all such historic fine levels re: byelaws, such that the fixed penalty for breaches is now at a consistent £1,000?

The daily fine after conviction in the case of pleasure boat certificates was £5 following amendment in 1975.

[Paul C]

Sorry but this is clearly not correct as I for one am not so everybody doesn't read it.

 

So as far as I can see in the last few posts there has been one attempting to get a poster to not post here but post elsewhere followed by a sweeping statement that everybody reads the other place which is clearly not correct.

 

I am beginning to think some posters on this forum are deliberately trying to undermine it.

 

Just how it reads to me.

 

Clearly if you interpret my post literally, then its not correct because when I say "everyone" and you interpret it as the entire population of the planet, it falls down. Yes, I accept that not literally everyone reads the other forum but the fact remains that it now has a significant audience, including the moderators on here, who seem to spend quite a lot of time reading it. Given that the relative numbers of visits are similar, then one can compare other merits of posting to each forum. The rules structure on here makes it quite easy to inadvertently break the forum rules, or have posts misinterpreted as rule-breaks; or even be banned or suspended without apparently breaking any rules. There is a distinct contrast on the other forum. So, for continuity (which has now been broken by the 2 weeks delay the thread was locked) and if you needed to choose just one forum.......

 

I'm just saying things how they are, if this comes across as undermining then its merely a downstream consequence of recent events on this forum.

[NigelMoore]

 

The offence is committed ONCE, and a maximum penalty is provided. A penalty for continuation past conviction exists, so a court on convicting a boater of not having a licence can impose a fine of £100 plus £2 for every day AFTER conviction. It cannot impose a fine of more than £100 in respect of the unlicenced boat for the days up to the conviction, or impose a fine of more that £2 per day beyond the conviction.

 

One of the arguments proffered by CaRT in Leigh’s case [as in most defended cases I know of] is that using this route results in only “derisory” fines, and leaves them still with unpaid licences, or at least, provides a route for recalcitrants to pay their licence always [effectively] in arrears.

 

This is just silly of course. The relevant Acts permit BW/CaRT to ask the magistrates to order payment of the sums owing for the licence in addition to the fines and costs. That will be applicable to whatever period ahead the owner wishes to remain on CaRT waters [supposing he does].

 

Armed with the relevant Court Orders, there is no need for CaRT to get any further involved in recovery of the sums, other than, if not paid on time, obtaining an enforcement order and leaving it to Court Bailiffs.

 

Mayalld is correct, so far as daily repeated licence offences in BW legislation is concerned [though I do wonder whether CaRT might not be within their rights to serve a fresh summons every so often]. But for surety on this score, repeat offence parameters need to be spelled out, as Richmond Council did in their own new byelaw of September 2014. Clause 4( b ) –

 

“If a boat continues to be moored after the expiry of 1 hour in breach of byelaw 4( a ), further offences will be committed after the expiry of the first hour in every subsequent 24 hour period (such 24 hour periods to be calculated with reference to the time at which the boat first moored on the land) until the boat ceases to be moored to the land." [my bold]

 

It would be interesting to know how much offside riparian land alongside London’s canals had properly been in the ownership of local Councils, despite BW’s land grabs in their last years. If any survived the rapacity of Mr Mills & Co, then some of the problems of congested moorings for longer than desirable could have been/could be placed in their laps, and the LPA be encouraged to apply for similar byelaws to those of Richmond.

[carlt]

Nigel, just post the updates and have the debate/etc on Thunderboat, pretty much everyone is there now anyway.

 

What a shame you feel it necessary to interrupt a discussion with spam from another website.

[Paul C]

 

What a shame you feel it necessary to interrupt a discussion with spam from another website.

 

Interrupt a discussion --> the thread was split, this is the metadiscussion in "suggestions and feedback" - possibly other posts belong to the other side of the split.

 

For clarity, no malice was meant, it was a mere administrative reason that if Nigel's effort is doubled due to posting now onto two forums than one; and he has limited time to do so, the preferred may be the forum which doesn't impose a rule prohibiting opinion to be encapsulated within the otherwise strictly factual information within such a post. However since he is able to post on both, using copy and paste, it seems not to be the issue it might have been.

[carlt]

 

 

 

For clarity, no malice was meant,

 

Probably not but I think it is a bit patronising you telling someone where they should and shouldn't post.

 

It is also spam and contrary to the forum rules (and has been ever since the forum began).

[Paul C]

 

Probably not but I think it is a bit patronising you telling someone where they should and shouldn't post.

 

It is also spam and contrary to the forum rules (and has been ever since the forum began).

 

No worries, I knew it would be open to misinterpretation but I simply didn't make the effort to reword or rephrase it in a way that couldn't be misinterpreted. I do appreciate there are others who are willing to defend/fight on for the continued success of this forum. I guess I'm not that affected any more.

 

I disagree (that its against the rules) - if it is, please point out how?

[carlt]

 

No worries, I knew it would be open to misinterpretation

 

I disagree (that its against the rules) - if it is, please point out how?

I don't see how you can misinterpret a simple instruction to another poster to go to another website rather than this one.

 

You obviously are affected because you feel the need to come here and publicly advertise the other site.

 

I t is spam...read the rules.

 

It is pathetic actions like this that will put folk off going to look at Thunderboat so your attempt to spam has probably backfired.

[Paul C]

Once again, disagree its spam and disagree its pathetic. Please can you point out in detail how it is spam; and how it breaks the site rules?